I give it 7 out of 10 not because it was that appealing to me, but because I think it set out trying to be "something", and whatever that "something" is, it did a fairly good job. For my own taste preferences, I'd rate it at maybe a 4 or a 5.
It's about a woman called to do a report on an old ship to see if it qualifies for "historical site" status. Once there, a piano falls on her car & she can't leave. She meets creepy caretaker Vigs who's clearly at least mildly retarded (in the technical sense of the term, not the derogatory one). Through a chain of events with unexpected details but easily predictable results, she's forced to stay the night on the ship. She's awakened to some strange noises and then her nightmare begins. She keeps experiencing the strangest encounters with Vigs and an occasional 2nd dude (Semperton, who appears in all of 2 scenes), suddenly finding herself waking up just as the scene reaches a climax. From this point on, you won't know if she's really waking up this time, or if it's another dream sequence beginning.
Revealing more than that would be spoiler territory. There are icky scares, startle scares, gotcha' scares and a few others, many involving repeated loops, funky-tasting "sausage" and blood-sucking parasitic eels.
It's very difficult to grasp what is -really- happening, here. When it ended, I felt no sense of completion. If you're very attentive to detail and quick of wit, you might be able to get it the first time. But I had to do a second viewing (in parts, that is - skimming through the movie to see if I could find scenes to explain the questions I have). After that, I did finally manage to work out what happened, and can tell you that everything you need to know to put all the pieces together for yourself happens within the first 10-15 minutes. Everything after that seems to flow from the various elements of those first few scenes.
I recommend it if you like puzzlers, though it is very slow-paced. It's not "non-stop thrills & chills" by any stretch, but it is non-stop "creepy and ominous". It's also quite likely that you won't quite grasp the full details of events on a first viewing either, which if that's the case, you can probably get all your questions answered by watching just the first few scenes again - everything up to her drive on the way to the ship. If you pay attention to those scenes carefully enough, I think you'll be able to put it all together.
That's not for everyone, though - that's more than just watching a movie, that's also solving it.
About the only thing I would've really changed (other than perhaps making the opening few clues a bit more noticeable) would be Paula's confusion with the repeating dream sequences. But then again, it was pretty much like a real dream tends to unfold - you wake up and think you're in the real world, only to wake up again. I do this over and over again sometimes, and sometimes, I'll believe I've awakened "for real" every single time, and not be too bothered by the repeated awakenings. So that aspect of it - it would've seemed more logical if that "bothered" her in some way, but yet it technically is more realistic that it didn't.
So like I said, not for everyone but engaging for more thoughtful, speculative movie watchers.
It's about a woman called to do a report on an old ship to see if it qualifies for "historical site" status. Once there, a piano falls on her car & she can't leave. She meets creepy caretaker Vigs who's clearly at least mildly retarded (in the technical sense of the term, not the derogatory one). Through a chain of events with unexpected details but easily predictable results, she's forced to stay the night on the ship. She's awakened to some strange noises and then her nightmare begins. She keeps experiencing the strangest encounters with Vigs and an occasional 2nd dude (Semperton, who appears in all of 2 scenes), suddenly finding herself waking up just as the scene reaches a climax. From this point on, you won't know if she's really waking up this time, or if it's another dream sequence beginning.
Revealing more than that would be spoiler territory. There are icky scares, startle scares, gotcha' scares and a few others, many involving repeated loops, funky-tasting "sausage" and blood-sucking parasitic eels.
It's very difficult to grasp what is -really- happening, here. When it ended, I felt no sense of completion. If you're very attentive to detail and quick of wit, you might be able to get it the first time. But I had to do a second viewing (in parts, that is - skimming through the movie to see if I could find scenes to explain the questions I have). After that, I did finally manage to work out what happened, and can tell you that everything you need to know to put all the pieces together for yourself happens within the first 10-15 minutes. Everything after that seems to flow from the various elements of those first few scenes.
I recommend it if you like puzzlers, though it is very slow-paced. It's not "non-stop thrills & chills" by any stretch, but it is non-stop "creepy and ominous". It's also quite likely that you won't quite grasp the full details of events on a first viewing either, which if that's the case, you can probably get all your questions answered by watching just the first few scenes again - everything up to her drive on the way to the ship. If you pay attention to those scenes carefully enough, I think you'll be able to put it all together.
That's not for everyone, though - that's more than just watching a movie, that's also solving it.
About the only thing I would've really changed (other than perhaps making the opening few clues a bit more noticeable) would be Paula's confusion with the repeating dream sequences. But then again, it was pretty much like a real dream tends to unfold - you wake up and think you're in the real world, only to wake up again. I do this over and over again sometimes, and sometimes, I'll believe I've awakened "for real" every single time, and not be too bothered by the repeated awakenings. So that aspect of it - it would've seemed more logical if that "bothered" her in some way, but yet it technically is more realistic that it didn't.
So like I said, not for everyone but engaging for more thoughtful, speculative movie watchers.